Public Deliberation, Network Analysis and the Political Integration of Muslims in Britain

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2013-02-04 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12003
Manlio Cinalli, Ian O'Flynn
{"title":"Public Deliberation, Network Analysis and the Political Integration of Muslims in Britain","authors":"Manlio Cinalli,&nbsp;Ian O'Flynn","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>This article</i></p><ul>\n \n <li>One of the first papers to bring deliberative theory and network theory together.</li>\n \n <li>Maps ‘who is talking to whom’ in the field of ethnic relations in Britain.</li>\n \n <li>Argues that, while Muslim actors do not necessarily couch their claims in general terms, they are well integrated nevertheless.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>In this article, we examine the assumption that, insofar as actors deliberate well, political integration will follow. We do so specifically with respect to the political integration of Muslims in the field of ethnic relations in Britain, using data retrieved from two quality British broadsheets. Our approach has two components. First, we consider the quality of the deliberative interventions actors make, comparing Muslim actors with other actors. Second, we use measures drawn from network analysis to assess the level of political integration as indicated by the ties that those deliberative interventions forge. Our findings show that the link between how Muslim actors deliberate and their political integration in the field is more complex that one might assume. Although Muslims do not deliberate as well as normative deliberative theory says they should, empirically they are politically integrated, having forged diverse relationships that avoid the danger of polarisation.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 3","pages":"428-451"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12003","citationCount":"39","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

Abstract

This article

  • One of the first papers to bring deliberative theory and network theory together.
  • Maps ‘who is talking to whom’ in the field of ethnic relations in Britain.
  • Argues that, while Muslim actors do not necessarily couch their claims in general terms, they are well integrated nevertheless.

In this article, we examine the assumption that, insofar as actors deliberate well, political integration will follow. We do so specifically with respect to the political integration of Muslims in the field of ethnic relations in Britain, using data retrieved from two quality British broadsheets. Our approach has two components. First, we consider the quality of the deliberative interventions actors make, comparing Muslim actors with other actors. Second, we use measures drawn from network analysis to assess the level of political integration as indicated by the ties that those deliberative interventions forge. Our findings show that the link between how Muslim actors deliberate and their political integration in the field is more complex that one might assume. Although Muslims do not deliberate as well as normative deliberative theory says they should, empirically they are politically integrated, having forged diverse relationships that avoid the danger of polarisation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众审议、网络分析与英国穆斯林的政治整合
本文是最早将协商理论与网络理论结合在一起的论文之一。地图“谁在和谁说话”在英国的种族关系领域。认为,虽然穆斯林演员不一定以一般的方式表达他们的主张,但他们仍然很好地融合在一起。在本文中,我们研究了这样一个假设,即只要行动者深思熟虑,政治一体化就会随之而来。我们使用从两份高质量的英国大报中检索到的数据,专门就穆斯林在英国种族关系领域的政治一体化问题这样做。我们的方法有两个组成部分。首先,我们将穆斯林行为者与其他行为者进行比较,考虑行为者审慎干预的质量。其次,我们使用从网络分析中得出的措施来评估政治整合水平,这是由这些审慎干预所形成的联系所表明的。我们的研究结果表明,穆斯林行为者如何深思熟虑与他们在该领域的政治整合之间的联系比人们可能认为的要复杂得多。尽管穆斯林不像规范的协商理论所说的那样认真考虑问题,但从经验上看,他们在政治上是一体化的,建立了多样化的关系,避免了两极分化的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1